Start your week with LaRouchePAC's live Monday Update for the latest news, background, and our efforts to bring the United States on board the shifting global paradigm towards win-win cooperation and a just, new economic order. Hosted by Matthew Ogden.

In an international webcast on Friday June 6, 2014, Lyndon LaRouche called for the impeachment of Barack Obama for continuing to conduct war as did Bush and Cheney on behalf of the British Empire under the cover of the so-called Color Revolutions and the so-called Arab Spring.

Video of 06tZyNNCf1M

This policy, enunciated by Tony Blair, in 1999 in a speech in Chicago, and initiated following the British Empire/Saudia Arabia orchestrated 9/11 attack on the United States, was explicitly denounced by Russian and Belarusian military speakers including Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu, Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov, and Vladimir Zarudnitsky, head of Operations for the Russian General Staff, and Belarusian Defense Minister Yury Zhadobin at the May 23 Moscow Security Conference.

Zarudnitsky explicitly said:

"Colored revolutions are a new technique of aggression, geared towards destroying a state from within."

According to Voice of Russia, President Putin personally sent a written keynote address to the Moscow Security Conference which was read to those attending by Defense Minister Shoigu, in which Putin explicitly denounces "color revolutions" by name, stating that the "archaic logic of geopolitical games" is leading to a serious increase in global instability and tension:

"The process of development of a new polycentric system of international relations is proceeding with difficulty and is accompanied by an increase in global instability. We have not been able to make considerable headway in the formation of a union space of peace, security and stability in Europe and the Atlantic. The situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa remains tense, and serious risks are associated with the situation in Afghanistan. Obviously, modern challenges and threats make it necessary to stop the archaic logic of geopolitical games with a zero result, the attempts to force your own methods and values on other peoples, including by color revolutions."

In an interview on French TV prior to the celebration of the anniversary of D-Day, Putin himself pointed to the fact that Europe and the United States are supporting an anti-constitutional armed coup in Ukraine which unleashed chaos and violence right on Russia's border and that the same type of operation is being attempted in Syria.

LaRouche emphasized in the webcast:

"This has been going on in Northern Africa, in games with the Saudis, in games with terrorists, or Blair's operation in setting up the Iraq war, which was an unlawful war, a violation of everything by the British monarchy, the British Empire."

In comments on June 7, LaRouche stressed that 9/11 was actually a "color revolution" directed at the United States. The purpose of this attack on the part of the British Empire and its Saudi Arabian ally was to turn the United States into the instrument for launching perpetual warfare under the doctrines of "limited sovereignty," "responsibility to protect" and "humanitarian intervention" — the so-called Blair Doctrine. The ultimate aim of that policy is to reduce the world's population, i.e. genocide, hardly humanitarian.

The Blair Doctrine: "A New Type of War"

In his speech in Chicago before the Economic Club on April 22, 1999, Blair put forward the British Empire policy of so-called "humanitarian intervention" in violation of the principle of "non-interference" in the sovereign affairs of another nation-state as was established by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648:

"We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not... We cannot turn our backs on conflicts and the violation of human rights within other countries if we want still to be secure. On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organising our international institutions... We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community."

In a later speech on March 5, 2004, i.e. after 9/11, Blair was even more explicit:

"So, for me, before Sept. 11, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely, that a country's internal affairs are for it, and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance."

Blair finished his speech by declaring:

"That is the struggle which engages us. It is a new type of war."

In addition to violating the U.S. Constitution, this policy is also in direct violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter which says:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

It also merits prosecution under the principle established by the Nuremberg Tribunal that it is a war crime to wage aggressive war, which it defined as a "crime against peace" punishable under international law:

Principle VI of Nuremberg states:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:(a) Crimes against peace:(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)."

On the crime of aggressive war, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg declared:

"War is essentially an evil thing... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

And yet this is the policy which the Bush/Cheney administration carried out against Iraq under the influence of Blair's lies about weapons of mass destruction. It is also the policy under which Obama has carried out the intervention to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya and has attempted to overthrow Assad in Syria. It is also the doctrine under which Bush/Cheney tortured suspected terrorists and Obama has murdered innocent civilians and even American citizens in Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan through drone attacks. It is also the doctrine under which Obama carried out a Nazi coup in Ukraine.

In the name of "humanitarian intervention" and the "responsibility to protect" — also vehemently espoused by the witches who immediately control Obama, including Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, and Valerie Jarrett — the United States under Obama has allied with al-Qaeda terrorists in Libya and Syria and with Nazis in Ukraine.

LaRouche: Obama Warfare Operations Violate Constitution

From June 6th Webcast:

LAROUCHE: "This subject brings us to the question of the urgency of the immediate impeachment of the President of the United States. Now, among all the things that are otherwise being described here under this question, the essential thing is known now. It's known internationally: Obama has been conducting war, since the greatest part of his Presidency. This warfare, which already started under his predecessor—not the jerky Bush, but under Cheney, as such. What's happened, is, all the things that have been going on, say, in Northern Africa, in games with the Saudis, in games with terrorists, or Blair's operation in setting up the Iraq war, which was an unlawful war, a violation of everything by the British monarchy, the British Empire. So, the war has been going on, but it's not called a war.

"For example, let's take the case of what happened just now recently, in terms of the Ukraine policy. The Ukraine policy is actually under the control of people with Nazi backgrounds. Now, some of them are directly Nazis, as members of an organization which was founded by Adolf Hitler himself, and this is the rough-and-tumble group inside that part of the nation. Now, the guy who's the angel, who pulled this swindle, this fraudulent election in Ukraine, was a chief financier of the Nazis.

"Now, put this together. You have a fact that's actually since the Bush, Jr. generation... but also totally under the Obama Administration, as a whole sweep of the Obama Administration, has been conducting warfare—actual warfare—warfare that violates the Constitution—eh?—and crimes against humanity.

Obama Running Illegal Warfare As Patsy For The British Empire

More from June 6th Webcast:

"The point is this: What they've been using is what they call "guerrilla warfare." And under the name of gangsters and guerrilla warfare types of operations, they've moved in on various countries. For example: All of the Saudi operations of international terrorism were done under the British direction. For example, 9/11 was a British Empire—the Queen's own Empire—9/11. The backup on cover for the Bush-Cheney Administration was the same thing. They organized, and supported, and concealed the fact that there was a warfare operation being run by the British Empress, under her surveillance, all the way through. Now, Tony Blair's operation, for the Queen, in organizing an Iraq war that was illegal. It is a fraud against the nations.

"What's happening now, is that Obama is the patsy. It's actually the Queen who runs thing. But Obama's been the patsy whose been running, in the name of the United States, support for operations which are actually warfare. In other words, what Obama has been doing, in his meddling in Europe with military operations, is a violation of the Constitution per se. They're conducting war. What he did in Iraq, what was done in Iraq: the same kind of thing, the precedent. Northern Africa: same precedent. It was actually warfare, directed by the United States, in violation of the Constitution.

"Now the time has come at which Obama's crimes have become so prominent, and have become so complicated in other parts of the world. Now, how do we have to estimate this thing? Now, you have to understand what Putin is doing, from this standpoint. Putin is, first, aware that what he's up against is a war against Russia, in particular, which is directed by the President of the United States. Right? It's a fact. He does it. But they don't call it a war. It's a "scramble." But they're running it as a form of irregular warfare, but it is warfare, it is not irregular—yes, it's irregular in some respects, but they don't call it warfare, but it is warfare! The idea is, if they go in with knowing things, like these kinds of operations, and they say, "Well, that's not warfare. These guys are patriots, they're, you know, dealing against repression."

"Well, you look at the whole planet. Look at the Islamic aspect of this thing, since the first Chechen war, back then. The whole thing has been continuous since that time. And the British Empire is running it

"Now Obama comes out, and actually makes a statement which is a violation of the Constitution on these grounds, and on other grounds. Now, the question is, is: When are there enough patriots in the United States in power in government, who will actually say, "This is illegal warfare under international law, and it's also illegal under the Federal Constitution. The President of the United States cannot conduct war without the approval of the Congress. Cannot be done." But it's being done all the time, especially by the Obama case is the most flagrant case.

SUPPORTING MATERIAL

On May 23, 2014, the annual Moscow Security Conference was held in which speakers from the top levels of the Russian military command declared that they view so-called colored revolutions to be a new type of aggressive war, identifying the foreign-promotion of such revolutions to be a "new technique of aggression" deployed with the geopolitical intent to deliberately destabilize countries which occupy "an important strategic position and conduct an independent foreign policy" in order to cause "a major shift in the balance of power in a particular region," targetting not only Russia, but also China as well as the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, and South Asia.

"Russian military officers now tie the term “Color Revolution” to the crisis in Ukraine and to what they saw as a new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties. It was seen as posing a potential threat to Russian in the near abroad, to China and Asia states not aligned with the US, and as a means of destabilizing states in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, and South Asia...

"Key Russian officers and officials presented a view of the U.S. and the West as deliberately destabilizing nations in North Africa, the Middle East, and the rest of the world for their own ends. They describe such actions as having failed, and been a key source of terrorism. They see the West as rejecting partnership with the West as a threatening Russia along all of its borders with Europe.

"Senior Russian officials are also using the term 'Color Revolution' in ways that are far more critical than in the past. For example, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, has accused the United States and the European Union of an attempt to stage yet another color revolution in Ukraine, and said during the Conference that, 'Attempts to impose homemade recipes for internal changes on other nations, without taking into account their own traditions and national characteristics, to engage in the export of democracy, have a destructive impact on international relations and result in an increase of the number of hot spots on the world map.'

"The end result is a radically different reading of modern history, of US and European strategy, their use of force, and US and European goals and actions from any issued in the West and in prior Russian literature...

"What is critical is that the U.S. and Europe listen to what Russian military leaders and strategists are saying. These are not Russian views the U.S. and Europe can afford to ignore." (emphasis in original)

Speakers from the Russian and Belorussian militaries who addressed this theme in detail included Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu, Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov, Belarusian Defense Minister Yury Zhadobin and others. According to another account, that of Dmitry Gorenburg, Zhadobin "mentioned Gene Sharp as the originator of the strategy used in these revolutions," as had Rachel Douglas in EIR of February 3, 2012.

Zhadobin also pointed to the Baltic States as a "gray zone" in Europe, since there are no CFE conventional force limits or reporting requirements for military forces there; they are an area where large forces can be assembled in secret.

The speaker who delved into the most detail on the colored revolution strategy appears to have been Vladimir Zarudnitsky, head of Operations for the Russian General Staff. This is Gorenburg's summary of Zarudnitsky's talk:

"Like the plenary speakers, Zarudnitsky focused on the military aspects of colored revolutions. He argued that while the West considers colored revolutions to be a peaceful way of overthrowing undemocratic regimes, events in the Middle East and North Africa have shown that military force is an integral part of all aspects of colored revolutions. This includes external pressure on the regime in question to prevent the use of force to restore order, the provision of military and economic assistance to rebel forces, and if these measures are not sufficient, the conduct of a military operation to defeat government forces and allow the rebels to take power. Colored revolutions are thus a new technique of aggression pioneered by the United States and geared toward destroying a state from within by dividing its population. The advantage of this technique is that it requires a relatively low expenditure of resources to achieve its goals.

"Zarudnitsky argues that since this type of warfare is based on the network principle, it has no front line. It is used primarily in urban areas, frequently using civilians as shields. Commonly accepted rules of warfare are ignored, since official state-run armed forces are not used. Instead, criminal and terrorist forces and private military companies are allowed to act with impunity. Counter-guerrilla warfare tactics are required to defeat this type of warfare.

"The key question for military planners is which state will be targeted next. Weak states with poor economies are generally the most vulnerable to these tactics, but the main factor in determining targets is the geopolitical interest of the provoking state. For this reason, such revolutions are organized primarily in countries with significant natural resources or ones that have an important strategic position and conduct an independent foreign policy. The destabilization of such countries allows for a major shift in the balance of power in a particular region (in the case of the Arab Spring—the Middle East and North Africa)."

Putin Attacks Color Revolutions By Name at Moscow Conference

A Voice of Russia article reports President Vladimir Putin's brief "greetings" to the May 23 Moscow Security Conference, and again confirms Lyndon LaRouche's judgment that the attack on the "color revolutions" as brutal warfare, is Putin's top-down policy.

According to the Voice of Russia article, Putin sent a written address to the Moscow Security Conference which was read by Defense Minister Shoigu, and in which Putin explicitly denounces "color revolutions" by name:

Putin said: "It's time to stop playing geopolitical games...global instability is on the rise and it is now time to stop forcing someone's methods and values on countries."

"The process of development of a new polycentric system of international relations is proceeding with difficulty and is accompanied by an increase in global instability. We have not been able to make considerable headway in the formation of a union space of peace, security and stability in Europe and the Atlantic,"

"Obviously, modern challenges and threats make it necessary to stop the archaic logic of zero-sum geopolitical games, attempts to force your own methods and values on other peoples, including by color revolutions."

NGOs: No Good Organizations

This policy could be seen to be launched two and one-half years ago, when U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul and several hundred NGOs were trying to move "after an election" — the Soros/Sharp formula — to bring down Putin's elected government. The election was Dec. 4, 2011, and then on December 8, as EIR reported:

"Prime Minister Putin, in a heated session with his National People's Front on Dec. 8, noted that the U.S.A. has invested 'hundreds of millions of dollars' to shape the Russian electoral process. 'We must develop forms of protecting our sovereignty, protecting ourselves from outside interference,' he said."

Then followed, among other measures, the rigorous registration of NGOs operating in Russia, as agents of the foreign organizations supporting them. A year and one-half later, Putin told a German ARD-TV interviewer objecting to this, that the United States had had exactly the same law since 1938! Furthermore, there were 654 foreign NGOs operating in Russia (compared to two funded by Russia in Europe and the United States), and that these NGOs had received $1 billion from abroad in just the four months following Russia's registration law.

Putin Denounces "Anti-Constitutional Armed Coup" in Ukraine

In an exclusive interview with Europe-1 and TF-1, on June 4, 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin repeatedly denounced Obama and others in Western Europe for promoting an "anti-constitutional armed coup" in Ukraine in order to topple the previous government, posing a direct threat to Russia including the movement of NATO military infrastructure right up to Russia's border. Putin returned to this point several times throughout the interview, repeatedly using the phrase "anti-constitutional armed coup" as promoted by the United States and Europe. Putin also addressed the support for known al-Qaeda terrorists in the attempts to impose regime change against Bashar al-Assad in Syria, warning that regime change strategy threatens to "turn Syria into another Afghanistan, a completely uncontrollable spawning ground for the terrorist threat, including for European countries."

Putin: U.S. & Europe Supported Anti-Constitutional Coup in Ukraine

VLADIMIR PUTIN: ... Here’s our position. What actually happened there [in Ukraine]? There was a conflict and that conflict arose because the former Ukrainian president refused to sign an association agreement with the EU. Russia had a certain stance on this issue. We believed it was indeed unreasonable to sign that agreement because it would have a grave impact on the economy, including the Russian economy. We have 390 economic agreements with Ukraine and Ukraine is a member of the free trade zone within the CIS. And we wouldn’t be able to continue this economic relationship with Ukraine as a member of the free trade zone. We discussed this with our European partners. Instead of continuing the debates by legitimate and diplomatic means, our European friends and our friends from the United States supported the anti-constitutional armed coup. This is what happened. We did not cause this crisis to happen. We were against this course of events but after the anti-constitutional coup – let’s face it, after all… The point is no one should be brought to power through an armed anti-constitutional coup, and this is especially true of the post-Soviet space where government institutions are not fully mature. When it happened some people accepted this regime and were happy about it while other people, say, in eastern and southern Ukraine just won’t accept it. And it is vital to talk with those people who didn’t accept this change of power instead of sending tanks there, as you said yourself, instead of firing missiles at civilians from the air and bombing non-military targets.

QUESTION: But, Mr President, the United States and the White House claim they have evidence that Russia intervened in the conflict, sent its troops and supplied weapons. They claim they have proof. Do you believe that?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Proof? Why don’t they show it? The entire world remembers the US Secretary of State demonstrating the evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, waving around some test tube with washing powder in the UN Security Council. Eventually, the US troops invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was hanged and later it turned out there had never been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You know, it’s one thing to say things and another to actually have evidence. I will tell you again: no Russian troops…

QUESTION: Are you saying the US is lying?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There are no armed forces, no Russian ‘instructors’ in southeastern Ukraine. And there never were any.

QUESTION: So you do not want to annex Ukraine and you never tried to destabilise the situation there?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We never did that. The Ukrainian government must now sit down and talk with their own people instead of using weapons, tanks, planes and helicopters. They must start the negotiating process....

QUESTION: Do you recognise Ukraine’s sovereignty and its neutral stance with respect to relations between Russia and the West?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, we recognise its sovereignty. Moreover, we’d like Ukraine to act as a sovereign state. Joining any military bloc or any other rigid integration alliance amounts to a partial loss of sovereignty. But if a country opts for this and wants to cede part of its sovereignty, it’s free to do so. Regarding Ukraine and military blocs, this is what worries us, because if Ukraine joins, say, NATO, NATO’s infrastructure will move directly towards the Russian border, which cannot leave us indifferent.

QUESTION: But Crimea has been included on the map of Russia, the kind of maps we used in school. It’s part of Russia now. What was it, annexation or reunification? Which word should we use?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If you’ll let me finish, I think you’ll see what I mean. Russian troops were in Crimea under the international treaty on the deployment of the Russian military base. It’s true that Russian troops helped Crimeans hold a referendum on their (a) independence and (b) desire to join the Russian Federation. No one can prevent these people from exercising a right that is stipulated in Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of nations to self-determination.

QUESTION: In other words, you will not return Crimea [to Ukraine]? Crimea is Russia, is that it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: In accordance with the expression of the will of people who live there, Crimea is part of the Russian Federation and its constituent entity.I want everyone to understand this clearly. We conducted an exclusively diplomatic and peaceful dialogue – I want to stress this – with our partners in Europe and the United States. In response to our attempts to hold such a dialogue and to negotiate an acceptable solution, they supported the anti-constitutional state coup in Ukraine, and following that we could not be sure that Ukraine would not become part of the North Atlantic military bloc. In that situation, we could not allow a historical part of the Russian territory with a predominantly ethnic Russian population to be incorporated into an international military alliance, especially because Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia. I am sorry, but we couldn’t act differently....

QUESTION: Mr President, Syrian leader Bashar Assad has been re-elected president without much effort. Can you influence him? Can you ask him to order his army to stop its atrocities, to stop fighting their own people?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: All sides are guilty of atrocities there, but primarily the extremist organisations that are thriving in Syria. We are mostly worried about…

QUESTION: Religious, Islamic [organisations]…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: …those organisations that are directly connected with Al Qaeda. There are many of them there, which no one tries to deny any longer. It’s a general fact. But we are mostly worried that the wrong action could turn Syria into another Afghanistan, a completely uncontrollable spawning ground for the terrorist threat, including for European countries. All the terrorists who are operating there now would eventually move to other countries, including in Europe.

QUESTION: We don’t quite understand why you, Vladimir Putin, the man who wants to modernise Russia, support a person who is killing his own people, who is covered in their blood. How can this be?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I’ll explain very simply and clearly, and I hope that the majority of the French people who are watching and listening to this interview will understand me. We very much fear that Syria will fall apart like Sudan. We very much fear that Syria will follow in the footsteps of Iraq or Afghanistan. This is why we would like the legal authority to remain in power in Syria, so that Russia can cooperate with Syria and with ours partners in Europe and the United States to consider possible methods to change Syrian society, to modernize the regime and make it more viable and humane...

China's official news agency Xinhua reports that People's Daily, the flagship newspaper of the Communist Party, carried a signed article yesterday, calling on people to guard against "the trap of Western-style democracy." Senior Editor Mi Bohua writes:

"'Copying Western-style democracy would probably lead to disaster,' and 'street politics' usually leads to domestic turmoil and even civil war."

Reflecting the warnings by Vladimir Putin and Lyndon LaRouche regarding "color revolutions" under democratic garb constituting aggressive warfare, the article states: "For the United States and other Western countries, anything that accords with their interests and accepts their manipulation is democracy, while those that do not fit the norm are not.... Some countries in Western Asia and Northern Africa have fallen into the craze for Western-style democracy, which has led to irretrievable secession and endless domestic struggles instead of happiness and stability. Countries in Western Asia and Northern Africa, Ukraine and Thailand, which have experienced street protests and even armed conflicts, have been led astray to the wrong path of Western-style democracy, that is, 'street politics.'

"In most of the cases, the United States and some Western forces have been involved in the street politics in these countries, either on stage or behind the scenes."

Venezuela Foreign Minister Condemns "Color Revolutions"

"We have analyzed and condemned this entire process of the so-called colored revolutions, directed from abroad, which attempt to destabilize the situation in several countries, and undermine their independence and sovereignty."

Jaua said that Venezuela has been targeted by the same "colored revolution, accompanied by actions of armed groups" responsible for Ukraine's destabilization.

From The Archives: British Empire's "Color Revolution" Coups Target Russia

The following two articles, which appeared in the Jan. 20 and Feb. 3 editions of EIR Online magazine, respectively, provide the essential documentation on the British Empire's spawning of the "color revolution" strategy, which has been implemented by "democracy" thinktanks and other irregular warfare operatives throughout the world. They have been slightly abridged.

Note that the major players in the direct anti-Russia operations described here have also been in the center of the Ukraine operation—notably, British money-bags George Soros, and British-trained National Endowment for Democracy head Nadia Diuk.

Bankrupt British Empire Keeps Pushing To Overthrow Putin

by Rachel Douglas

Jan. 9—Organizers of the December 2011 "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have announced Feb. 4 as the date of their next street action, planned as a march around the city's Garden Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration which paved the way to the end of the Soviet Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition layers, and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of "dialogue" between them, in which ex-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests are intent on—if not actually destroying Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's bid for reelection as Russia's President in the March 4 elections—casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political turmoil.

Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down.

Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators demanded be cancelled for fraud, shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov, the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus inside the United States, exposed by EIR in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional "secret government," have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power. ("Why Count Rumyantsev Is Turning Over in His Grave," EIR, July 6, 1982. The Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions of His Diaries, Vol. II, Ch. 7, "Mission to Russia," reports his conversations with "Count Romanzoff" (Rumyantsev). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1874. This book and a more recent edition, The Russian Memoirs of John Quincy Adams: His Diary from 1809 to 1814 (New York: Arno Press, 1970), are rare.)

Jan. 22—Two centuries ago, Russia and the young United States entered the dread year of 1812, each in peril of annihilation. We Americans were about to be assaulted along our East Coast by the British, who would seize and burn Washington, D.C., while the Anglo-Venetian creature Napoleon marched on Moscow. At that time, our ambassador at St. Petersburg was a universal thinker, an astronomer, a rhetorician, one of our outstanding statesmen and future greatest Presidents, John Quincy Adams. In Count Nikolai Rumyantsev, the commerce minister, foreign minister, and chancellor to His Imperial Majesty Alexander I of Russia, Adams, during his 1809-14 posting, found an interlocutor of likewise broad interests, and a crucial shared one: awareness of the British Empire as the common enemy of the United States and Russia.

Today we are all the more in need of such a high quality of diplomatic representation, as the financial powers and geostrategists of the collapsing Trans-Atlantic system, descended from that same British Empire of 200 years ago, threaten to plunge the world into a dark age of depopulation and war—a thermonuclear war that would wipe out civilization.

Instead, Barack Obama this month sent to Moscow as the new U.S. ambassador, one Michael McFaul, who has pursued a narrow ideological agenda throughout his career. It is not an American agenda, but a British one: the cynical cultivation of "democratic" movements for geopolitical purposes, all the way up to and including the overthrow of governments deemed uncooperative with recent decades' globalization agenda. That has been the design of Project Democracy from its outset in the 1970s-1980s.[fn2] The Oxford background of leading figures like McFaul and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) vice president Nadia Diuk dramatizes the British connection, while they themselves openly state what it is they are up to.

LaRouchePAC published the following video in February of 2014 on the use of 'colored revolutions' as tools of regime change, as demonstrated in the case of Ukraine. The video details the operation run by Victoria Nuland in Ukraine as merely the latest in a series of "colored revolutions", carried out according the the playbook of Gene Sharp, as a form of warfare to destabilize Russia and the Eurasian bloc.

Related

by Barbara Boyd This statement explores the strategic significance of major events in the world starting in February of 2018. Our goal is to precisely situate Theresa May’s March 12–14 mad effort to manufacture a new... read more

In reviewing the fast-moving strategic developments of the last 2-3 days, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said that the rhetoric and actions directed against Russia and China by the neocons and the neolibs expose their... read more

British Prime Minister Theresa May has put on a "Churchillian" show over the apparent poisoning of a Russian double agent in London. She and Foreign Secretary Boris "Col. Blimp" Johnson have issued a 24-hour... read more

There continues to be progress with North Korea. Today and tomorrow, top South Korean envoys are visiting China, Japan, and Russia, with firsthand briefings from their meeting in Pyongyang 10 days ago, and from their... read more

The West has been "sleepwalking, in their arrogance," said Helga Zepp-LaRouche this weekend, first missing the boat on China's New Silk Road, and now outflanked by Vladimir Putin's dramatic announcement on March 1... read more

Your friendly fake-news media is now telling you, in regards to President Putin's speech of just one week ago, that "Oh, we knew about it all along—and anyway, it's not true." But in the unguarded early hours right... read more